Author
Topic: Jesus on slavery (Read 1972 times)

Is there anywhere in the NT (any version) where Jesus opposes slavery. If he does not is it still acceptable to be a slave master?(wage slavery ?). The NT is less preachy about slavery,but still seems to endorse it as a good thing.

The OT endorses slavery,by not referencing slavery as a negative thing,the NT,Jesus included,should it still be ok?

This is not a complete thought add to is as you see fit.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

<snip> I was more talking about "ownership" of another person,Jesus hardly objected to it. There is modern slavery,but not "ownership" I was asking about.

John 3;16 that's hardly an answer. I asked if Jesus was pro or con on the slavery thing. I don't really care if he has an interest in who we are slaves to,more to the point on if he was OK with it.

12 Monkeys, you may have effectively closed out any further responses from Christians. Their standard response is stating that we are all slaves and so whats the big deal about slavery. When specified that it is ownership of another person, they go silent. With the ambiguity removed they have no plausible explantion on why the modern world contemptously discarded the slavery their god and god's son endorsed.

Does depend on what you define "slavery" to be, but in general terms....yes.

Slavery, even leaving aside the whips and whatnot, essentially means involuntary complete subjugation to the dictates of another. Doesn't matter how lovely that person is, it is the "involuntary" side of things that is wrong.

To be a slave means that you must do what your master tells you, even if if horrifies or disgusts you or you feel it is wrong: you are a slave, you have no choice. To remove the option of refusal, in slavery, is what makes it wrong, as it reduced the human being to the level of an animal - less than that, even, to the level of an object.

According to the theory of evolution, aren't both of those come from the same ancestor?So according to your logic who believes in evolution, what makes us humans more special than animals?

Again, with your logic, what is the difference between keeping a monkey as your pet vs keeping another human as a slave.

Or slaughtering a cow for some good steak vs killing another man for money.

You know what the real problem here is? You're mistaking a scientific theory for a moral code. Evolution doesn't suggest that humans are more special than animals, that it's alright to keep a monkey as a pet or a human as a slave, or that it's alright to kill a cow for its meat versus killing a human for their money. Evolution only states "that which survives, reproduces". An organism that has a survival advantage will be more likely to survive long enough to reproduce than one which lacks that advantage.

And that's all that evolution means. It isn't a moral code; evolution doesn't justify behaviors. It simply explains why they might have come about. It doesn't say the first thing about whether one behavior is better than another, except in the single context of "does the behavior make this organism more likely to survive so that it can reproduce and pass on its genes?".

You would do better to ask Anfauglir what the moral basis of his statement was than to ask how evolution justifies behaviors.

Or slaughtering a cow for some good steak vs killing another man for money.

I note that you do not suggest slaughtering people for food. Unlike the Bible:

DEU 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee: 54 So that the man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave: 55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates. 56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, 57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

But then if God had not wanted people to eat people, he wouldn't have made people out of meat.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Does depend on what you define "slavery" to be, but in general terms....yes.

Slavery, even leaving aside the whips and whatnot, essentially means involuntary complete subjugation to the dictates of another. Doesn't matter how lovely that person is, it is the "involuntary" side of things that is wrong.

To be a slave means that you must do what your master tells you, even if if horrifies or disgusts you or you feel it is wrong: you are a slave, you have no choice. To remove the option of refusal, in slavery, is what makes it wrong, as it reduced the human being to the level of an animal - less than that, even, to the level of an object.

Bold: To highlight the portion I find hard to understand.

While I agree with most of what you said there; I disagree with the idea that any person can EVER be made to do something involuntarily. Even if the consequence of disobedience is immediate death, the option to dissent remains... always. The ONLY person that can enslave you, is you, by allowing another person to dictate your actions. If one allows themselves to become subjugated it is THEY that is making the decision to comply. Resistance is always an option. To me, it seems axiomatic. You might allow your fears to override your desire for freedom, but that doesn't change the fact that you CAN resist, always.

How does one "remove your option of refusal?"

EDIT: Spelling

« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 04:09:57 PM by Xero-Kill »

Logged

"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

Your question is incoherent as asked. A yes or no answer would not be meaningful, any more than a yes or no answer would be meaningful to a question you posed as gibberish.

A yes or no answer can be expanded upon. I fail to see how the question is incoherent. Difficult to answer, certainly. I think that makes it a good question, one that provokes further discussion.

I agree with Azdgari that the question itself is incoherent. I do not agree that a 'yes or no' answer would not be meaningful.

The incoherency stems from the very concept of objective morality. At least if a required aspect of objectivity is complete independence from subjective perspective. One of the bare minimum requirements for any scenario that allows for any discussion on ethics is the presence of subjective entities. No one discusses the moral merits or lack therein of stepping on a rock - not unless they're extrapolating consequences on subjective entities. Ergo, 'objective wrong' has no meaning.

But is that really what we mean when we bring up 'objective morality'? Well, I don't really know exactly. Which is why I think a 'yes or no' answer would be meaningful; when answering 'yes or no' one necessarily has to explain what it is by what they mean by 'objective morality'. I mean I guess they don't have to explain that, but without any explanation the 'yes or no' really is meaningless.

Logged

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

The civil war in the USA is a good example of what religious people thought about slavery. The south thought owning slaves was a God given right. The north,may still be religious more or less during this time were more progressive and did not view slavery in the same light.

Southerners did not view their position as wrong,and fought a war for their views on God's position as they saw it.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

To be a slave means that you must do what your master tells you, even if if horrifies or disgusts you or you feel it is wrong: you are a slave, you have no choice. To remove the option of refusal, in slavery, is what makes it wrong, as it reduced the human being to the level of an animal - less than that, even, to the level of an object.

Bold: To highlight the portion I find hard to understand.

While I agree with most of what you said there; I disagree with the idea that any person can EVER be made to do something involuntarily. Even if the consequence of disobedience is immediate death, the option to dissent remains... always. The ONLY person that can enslave you, is you, by allowing another person to dictate your actions. If one allows themselves to become subjugated it is THEY that is making the decision to comply. Resistance is always an option. To me, it seems axiomatic. You might allow your fears to override your desire for freedom, but that doesn't change the fact that you CAN resist, always.

Oh, agreed - I was rushing the answer a bit. I initially thought "I'm sure that will be a great comfort to anyone currently enslaved - it's THEIR fault, not their captors", but that doesn't really answer your point.

What I was endeavouring to say is that the difference between being a slave, and not, is that if I do not wish to carry out the instructions given me, is whether I have the legal or accepted right to refuse - and what the accepted or legal consequences will be.

At work, if my boss says "do that", then I can indeed refuse. He may sack me, but if refusal is what I choose, then there is nothing that can stop me from walking out. With slavery, if I refuse, I AM prevented from walking away. As a slave (assuming a socity that accepts slavery), if I try to run away, and get caught, the authorities will bring me back to my owner. If my owner chooses to restrain me, he can.

Less dramatically, my owner will have the right to decide what I wear. When I eat. Who I may speak to. When and wear I sleep. What I may read, or watch, or do.

Sorry, struggling to make my point here, but I think that's what it comes down to. The ability to make one's own decisions, and to have the freedom to carry them out.

There is a significant amount of overlap with lots of jobs, I agree! My employer restricts what I can wear and when I can eat. But if I stand up and say "I quit", and walk out, then there is nothing he can do to retain me. As a slave, I cannot quit. That's the point.

To remove the option of refusal, in slavery, is what makes it wrong, as it reduced the human being to the level of an animal...snip

According to the theory of evolution, aren't both of those come from the same ancestor?So according to your logic who believes in evolution, what makes us humans more special than animals?

Again, with your logic, what is the difference between keeping a monkey as your pet vs keeping another human as a slave.

Or slaughtering a cow for some good steak vs killing another man for money.

To be scrupulously correct: so are plants. Eating a potato is (by the above logic) as bad/good as killing another human. Likewise, how can I take medicine against a virus, because we share ancestors with them as well?

If you're going to use the ToE, probably best to follow it all the way for your examples.

The point of course is that the ToE is not an ethical or moral system. What it says - ALL it says - is that different life-forms share common ancestors; and that in a given situation the lifeform that is best adapted to its environment is more likely to survive.

As Azdgari rightly pointed out to me, my argument against slavery was not an objective one, it was subjective. My opinion on slavery is a moral one. It takes no account of the ToE, any more than it does the theory of gravity: those things ARE, and as someone cleverer than I once said: "you can't get an ought from an is".

Society draws a dividing line at species level. At other points in time, that line has been drawn at a racial or tribal level, occasionally it shifts a little the other way. At times it was considered morally acceptable to east very VERY close relatives. But that's the point: its a MORAL question - the ToE is not in and of itself anything to do with morality.

Indeed, I see your point, but I feel that my point still remains valid. While the black slaves in the 1700s had no "legal" rights, they also had no obligation to obey the law. They had intrinsic rights that cannot be usurped by anyone but themselves. They COULD have revolted, individually or collectively, at anytime during their servitude. Just because someone accepts their lot in life and chooses their bonds over exerting their intrinsic right to freedom doesn't mean they couldn't. Short of a device that can completely override the nervous system and thus compelling your actions involuntarily there is NO way that one person can impose their will upon another unless that other someone allows it. The consequences are irrelevant, the choice remains with the subjugated. That they allow another person to control them IS their own fault.

Please note that I am not arguing the morality or ethics of slavery as I find it detestable. I am simply indicating that, regardless of the outcome, options remain. If you are enslaved, it is by your own doing or lack thereof.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 08:01:37 AM by Xero-Kill »

Logged

"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

"Obey or die." When the choice becomes whether to obey and continue living, or to refuse and be killed, most people will 'choose' to obey.

But they DID choose. The only thing you have proven is that "most people" are weak willed. Plenty of other people chose the converse as well. I am sure many fled successfully, many were killed, but they were not enslaved. The ones that allowed their fears to override their higher reasoning spent centuries under a whip enduring hard labor the likes of which none of us can likely fathom. They still chose.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 08:19:00 AM by Xero-Kill »

Logged

"Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God? You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you. He never wanted you. In all probability, he hates you. This is not the worst thing that can happen."

Indeed, I see your point, but I feel that my point still remains valid. While the black slaves in the 1700s had no "legal" rights, they also had no obligation to obey the law. They had intrinsic rights that cannot be usurped by anyone but themselves. They COULD have revolted, individually or collectively, at anytime during their servitude. Just because someone accepts their lot in life and chooses their bonds over exerting their intrinsic right to freedom doesn't mean they couldn't. Short of a device that can completely override the nervous system and thus compelling your actions involuntarily there is NO way that one person can impose their will upon another unless that other someone allows it. The consequences are irrelevant, the choice remains with the subjugated. That they allow another person to control them IS their own fault.

Please note that I am not arguing the morality or ethics of slavery as I find it detestable. I am simply indicating that, regardless of the outcome, options remain. If you are enslaved, it is by your own doing or lack thereof.

Sorry but one has to be reasonable with ones definition of choice.

Revolts happened many times, the end result was always the same. A choice requires that one accept the consequences. You are right slaves could have chosed death over slavery. Many did! But the choice was missing a key component.

usually we don't really consider it a choice when the other option is death. Yes technically you can choose death. But it is pretty universally avoided by virtually all people and almost always considered worse then the alternative.

So a slaves choice was to live a simple life and enjoy what simple pleasures the masters allowed them or die. The fact that most chose to live and enjoy what time they had on earth vs die on the spot is not a real choice.

I think most people keep death as a virtual last choice when the alternative is perceived to be worse than life.

Choice is usually where you have options other than death or torture when spoken of by the masses. Choices are usually compromises where there are pros and cons to both .

I can choose to live in the New York and have good pizza, scenic hills, high taxes and blizzards, or I can live in the southeast where Pizza sucks, taxes are low, there are no hills. I chose the south because pizza is not as important as low taxes

Given the choice of slavery in a good house and death I might well consider the slavery as long as I could enjoy some of the pleasures of life. Buttttttt those are two really sucky choices.

here drink one of these two poisons one will kill you instantly and one will rack you with pain in the evenings.

But they DID choose. The only thing you have proven is that "most people" are weak willed. Plenty of other people chose the converse as well. I am sure many fled successfully, many were killed, but they were not enslaved. The ones that allowed their fears to override their higher reasoning spent centuries under a whip enduring hard labor the likes of which none of us can likely fathom. They still chose.

Weak willed is absolutely wrong. the ones who "chose slavery" enjoyed their lives had sex, kids, occasionally some good food, conversations and singing and dancing when they could. The ones who ran had a tremendously high incidence of death.

Perhaps I should invest all my money the lottery, leverage myself up the ass and hope I chose my numbers well. If I win I will be set for life, alternatively my life could be one of debt where my kids are taken from me as we live on the street.

It appears for most the choice was clear slavery was the better alternative then to risk all. A running slave probably had a 99% chance of getting caught tortured and then killed. 1% had a chance at living a free life in a prejudiced, segragated society, working long hours for megar wages but his movements are no longer controlled.